Codify — Article

California SCR 48 urges participation in High School Voter Education Weeks (2025)

A nonbinding legislative resolution encouraging schools, election officials, and students to use two designated 2025 windows for high-school voter preregistration and outreach.

The Brief

SCR 48 is a concurrent resolution in which the California Legislature and the Secretary of State encourage participation in High School Voter Education Weeks during April 14–25, 2025 and September 15–26, 2025. The text restates existing law that permits county elections officials to authorize on-campus registration during the last two full weeks in April and September, highlights student preregistration for 16- and 17-year-olds, and points schools to online and paper registration options.

The measure is declaratory and promotional rather than regulatory: it sets out findings—student population counts, preregistration uptake, and the excused-absence rule created by SB 955 (2022)—and urges schools, county officials, and civic groups to mobilize during the two weeks. For practitioners, the resolution signals legislative support for school-based voter outreach but does not create new obligations or funding streams.

At a Glance

What It Does

SCR 48 formally encourages Californians to take part in two designated High School Voter Education Weeks in 2025 and reminds schools and county elections officials of the existing statutory framework that allows voter registration activity on high school campuses. It identifies tools (online registration and physical registration cards) and asks high school administrators to consider appointing student voter outreach coordinators.

Who It Affects

High schools and their administrators, county elections officials who authorize on-campus registration, 16- and 17-year-old students eligible to preregister, the Secretary of State’s office, and civic organizations that conduct voter outreach in schools.

Why It Matters

The resolution amplifies existing legal pathways for student preregistration and frames 2025 as a targeted year for campus outreach—potentially increasing turnout among new registrants. Practically, it offers political cover for schools and local officials to engage in registration activities but provides no funding or new regulatory requirements.

More articles like this one.

A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.

Unsubscribe anytime.

What This Bill Actually Does

SCR 48 collects a set of findings about youth participation and the statutory tools already in place for school-based registration, then uses a concurrent resolution to encourage a coordinated push during two specific windows in 2025. The bill references Education Code Section 49040, which designates the last two full weeks of April and September as High School Voter Education Weeks and authorizes county election officials to permit registration activity on high school campuses during those periods.

The text highlights the mechanics that schools and local election offices can use: providing access to the state’s online voter registration application, requesting physical voter registration cards to distribute on campus, and appointing student voter outreach coordinators to help facilitate registration efforts. It also points to student preregistration rules (16- and 17-year-olds preregister and automatically become active voters at 18) and reminds districts of the excused-absence allowance enacted in SB 955 (2022) for civic participation.Because SCR 48 is a concurrent resolution rather than a statute, it does not change legal duties, impose new compliance requirements, or appropriate funds.

Its practical effect is hortatory: it signals legislative support for high-school–based registration drives, which can make local election offices and school administrators more comfortable running programs but leaves logistics, authorization, and resourcing to local actors.

The Five Things You Need to Know

1

The resolution specifically identifies April 14–25, 2025 and September 15–26, 2025 as the High School Voter Education Weeks the Legislature and Secretary of State encourage Californians to use.

2

SCR 48 cites Education Code §49040, the statutory authorization for county elections officials to allow voter registration activities on high school campuses during the last two full weeks of April and September.

3

The text encourages high schools to offer either the state's online voter registration application or physical voter registration cards and to appoint student voter outreach coordinators to facilitate on-campus preregistration.

4

The measure highlights that 16- and 17-year-olds who meet eligibility requirements may preregister and automatically become active voters when they turn 18.

5

SCR 48 references SB 955 (Chapter 921, Statutes of 2022), which permits one excused absence per year for students in grades 6–12 to participate in a civic or political event, provided the school is notified in advance.

Section-by-Section Breakdown

Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections. Expand all ↓

Preamble (Whereas clauses)

Findings on youth registration and legal context

The preamble compiles factual statements the Legislature considered relevant: the Secretary of State’s role, statutory authorization under Education Code §49040, the scale of California’s high school population, counts of students who used preregistration programs, and the SB 955 excused absence rule. Practically, this section establishes the factual and legal scaffolding the resolution relies on—useful for readers who want to know why lawmakers chose to emphasize school-based outreach in 2025.

Operative Resolution (First Resolved clause)

Encouragement to participate in two 2025 windows

This is the core operative language: the Legislature and the Secretary of State 'encourage' participation during the two specified weeks. That phrasing is hortatory, not mandatory. For local actors it functions as an explicit invitation from state government to plan outreach during these exact dates, which can help align the calendars of schools, county election offices, and nonprofit partners.

Implementation Guidance (embedded in Whereas clauses)

Suggested actions for schools and local officials

Although not cast as directives, the resolution lists specific actions—making online registration available on campus, distributing physical registration cards, appointing student outreach coordinators, and promoting students’ roles as election workers. Those suggestions identify low‑barrier operational choices local partners can adopt if they have the resources and county authorization.

1 more section
Administrative Clause (Second Resolved clause)

Transmission and record

The final clause directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit copies of the resolution to the author for distribution. This is a standard administrative step that ensures the sponsor and stakeholders receive formal documentation; it has no policy effect beyond recordkeeping and dissemination.

At scale

This bill is one of many.

Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.

Explore Elections in Codify Search →

Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost

Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.

Who Benefits

  • 16- and 17-year-old students: The resolution spotlights preregistration pathways that convert to active registrations at 18, increasing the likelihood that eligible youth enter voter rolls before their first major elections.
  • County elections officials: The measure signals statewide support for campus registration drives, which can increase registration volumes and legitimize proactive outreach partnerships with schools and nonprofits.
  • Civic and youth organizations: The resolution provides a clear timeframe and rhetorical backing that groups can use to coordinate volunteer recruitment, training, and school outreach efforts.
  • High schools and student leaders: Schools that choose to run programs get legislative cover for hosting registration drives and appointing student outreach coordinators, bolstering campus civic-engagement programming.

Who Bears the Cost

  • High school administrators and staff: Even though the resolution is nonbinding, running registration drives requires staff time to coordinate logistics, supervise distribution of forms, and ensure compliance with neutrality and privacy rules.
  • County elections offices: Authorizing and staffing on-campus registration may require extra outreach, training, and record-handling capacity during the designated windows.
  • Civic organizations and volunteers: Local groups that carry out outreach will absorb recruitment, training, and materials costs unless separately funded.
  • Local education agencies with limited resources: Districts serving under-resourced communities may face disparities in their ability to implement the suggestions without state funding or operational support.

Key Issues

The Core Tension

The central tension is between promoting youth voter participation through school-based registration—an effective way to add eligible young voters—and preserving school neutrality and manageable local workloads; pushing registration into schools increases civic access but places practical and reputational burdens on educators and local election officials without providing funding or detailed implementation guidance.

SCR 48 is promotional rather than prescriptive. It does not appropriate funds, change statutory voter‑registration rules, or compel schools or county officials to take action; the resolution’s power is largely symbolic.

That means its success depends on local capacity, county election office willingness to authorize on-campus activity, and the presence of community partners to carry out outreach.

The bill also raises practical implementation questions the text does not resolve: who arranges secure handling of registration data on campus, how schools ensure neutrality when hosting registration activities, and whether districts will uniformly offer online access or distribution of physical cards. The resolution points to student preregistration and an excused-absence rule as enabling factors, but it leaves open whether under-resourced districts will be able to take advantage of those provisions, potentially widening participation gaps.

Finally, because the resolution ties encouragement to two specified 2025 windows, it creates a concentrated demand on local personnel and volunteer capacity in those short periods; without follow-up measures, gains may be fleeting. Practitioners should read SCR 48 as a coordination signal and plan operational details—data security, staffing, and outreach continuity—at the local level.

Try it yourself.

Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.